Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1992, Publication: 79th ILC session (1992)

A Government representative acknowledged that the Committee of Experts had been making observations concerning the application of the Convention for the past ten years. The Ministry of Labour had been aware of these observations, and had conducted several studies to revise Labour Proclamation No. 64/1975 and other labour-related legislation in order to conform with the relevant ILO Conventions. However, the political situation in Ethiopia at the time did not favour the enactment of a progressive labour law. The country was now experiencing a new era of peace and democracy. The transitional Government had issued a Democratic Charter fully endorsing the principles of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights; it guaranteed freedom of conscience, expression, association and peaceful assembly and demonstration, and specifically provided that a just labour law protecting the rights and interests of workers should be promulgated. She stated that the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs was now preparing a new draft Labour Code, taking into account the comments of the Committee of Experts and making all possible efforts to bring the law into conformity with the principles of ILO Conventions ratified by Ethiopia, as well as principles in Conventions which it had not ratified, in particular those stipulating fundamental standards regarding working conditions. The draft law provided that workers may organise without interference from public authorities. A single trade union system was not imposed, and federations and confederations could be formed upon the initiative of workers. Employers may also establish and join employers' organisations. She noted that the Labour Proclamation of 1975 and Proclamation 222/83 omitted the question of the right of association of employers. She stated that trade unions did not need to obtain previous authorisation from competent authorities in order to affiliate, either with national organisations or with international organisations, and were not subject to any kind of scrutiny. They could establish their own constitution and by-laws and organise their administration and activities as they wished in order to achieve their objectives. Under the draft law, trade unions were no longer obligated to disseminate government ideology or serve as government spokesmen. They were free to protect their members' interests and to negotiate with employers on any labour matters. The right to strike in furtherance and defence of their interests was recognised. A tripartite tribunal was authorised to determine the legality of strikes, but no unnecessary conditions restricting the exercise of the right to strike were imposed. Lockouts by employers were also permitted. It was emphasised that the draft law, which replaced all previous labour legislation, was comprehensive, and covered all forms of employment relationships existing between workers and their employers. An effective labour inspectorate was established, and inspectors were empowed to bring court proceedings in respect of any violation of the labour law. Tripartite consultation was stressed for all spheres of industrial relations. The Government representative noted that the draft labour law had been discussed at length in the Council of Ministers, and that the final draft would be submitted this summer to the Council of Representatives, which was the highest competent authority in the country. The Government intended to send the text of the law to the Committee of Experts so that it could be examined in detail to determine whether it conformed with ILO standards; any suggestions from the Committee of Experts would be welcomed, as there remained an opportunity to improve the draft law prior to presentation for debate in the Council of Representatives. She noted that during the Organisation of African Unity's Commission Conference, the Prime Minister had informed the ILO Director-General that the Government was committed to implementing the principles of ILO Conventions and stated that the final text would be sent to the ILO as soon as it was adopted.

The Employers' members considered that the statement of the Government representative was very good news, especially when compared to that which they had heard about the case in previous years. In many ways, legislation and practice in this country contravened the Convention: for example, a single trade union system was imposed, trade unions were required to represent particular political views, and there was an absence of employers' organisations. In the report of the Committee of Experts it was pointed out that the transitional Government had undertaken the revision of the labour legislation. The Government representative referred to the content of this new legislation, which seemed to meet all the points referred to in the report of the Committee of Experts. They hoped that all the discrepancies between the Convention and national legislation would be eliminated in this way. It was clear that a democratic State was pluralist by nature and could not impose a political point of view on social groups. They encouraged the Government to put its intentions into practice as soon as possible so that at a later stage the Committee of Experts might ascertain whether the points raised had actually been addressed.

The Workers' members thanked the Government representative for informing them about the improvements and developments noted in the report of the Committee of Experts. As they had been waiting to receive the text prepared by the committee responsible for revising the national legislation, the Experts could only refer to the previous comments which noted the discrepancies between the legislation in force and the Convention. In this respect, it was necessary to raise two matters. Firstly, as the 1983 General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining had clearly indicated, the legislation could not impose a single trade union system. If the workers themselves decided to form a single trade union, this was their right, but other choices - in particular, trade union pluralism - must remain possible. The second point concerned the crucial importance of the right to strike as an essential element of freedom of association. It was hoped that in the examination of this question the Government would duly take into account the decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association and the conclusions of the Committee of Experts. Finally, in view of the importance of the announced changes, it was essential that the legislative text be supplied in the near future to the ILO, so that the Committee of Experts could examine the planned legislation to determine whether it had eliminated the discrepancies that had been pointed out for many years.

A Workers' member from Italy considered that it was necessary to take into account the very serious economic and political conditions faced by Ethiopia during its transition towards democracy. It was necessary for this democratisation process to gain support from ILO assistance and from bilateral relations.

A Government member of Germany referred to the fundamental changes which had taken place in recent months in Ethiopia, which had not only brought peace to the country but had also led to a completely different political, economic and social orientation. The events which were related by the Government representative were further evidence that the Government was proceeding in the right direction. These statements demonstrated the influence which ILO standards could have on the national legislation of member States. The Government representative from Germany wished to join in the comments made by the preceding speakers and hoped that in the next report of the Committee of Experts it would be able to take note of significant changes in this case.

The Government representative reiterated that the Government would send an English translation of the draft labour law to the Committee of Experts for its review; the draft was approved by the Council of Ministers in June 1992.